Search

We now read the New York Times Sunday paper. It takes us 3 weeks to make our way through the articles and features. I disagree with a some of what I read, but the writing is often excellent. I learn a lot and THINK hard. Others’ contrary views certainly exercise my patience but sometimes they prove painful to tolerate kindly.

A self-proclaimed ‘abortion doula’ writes about the need to offer compassion for women who only want to make their own decisions, without judgment.

The author makes several remarkable assertions without reasons or statistics. I do understand that her word budget probably limited her to around 700 words. But the danger in bald-faced statements is that the average UN-thinking Joe or Jane might swallow them down whole.

The most glaring paragraph offers these ‘facts’.

“When we are denied abortions, we are 3 times as likely to end up below the federal poverty line, compared to those who are able to get the abortions they want.”

I checked this ‘fact’ and found one study from which Sherman most likely drew. The women supposedly denied abortions in this study numbered 182. My first question focused on whether 182 is a significantly large enough sample size from which to draw valid conclusions. Furthermore, I’m unclear whether the women in the study already lived below the poverty line before they became pregnant. Doesn’t it make sense that after the birth of a baby, one’s ability/availability to hold down a job decreases?

“About 2/3 of people who have abortions are parents who want to give the children they already have the best life.”

How does she know what they intend for their other kids? How does adding another child to the family automatically imply a degraded life for the older children? How is the one (assumed desire) related to the current condition (carrying another child)?

That statistic, I found, comes from one study of a carefully circumscribed group of women. Here’s an analysis. We should recognize how easy it is to find any study you want on the internet to back up your viewpoint.

So given the questionable reliability of ‘facts’ and studies out there in cyber space just what questions should a Logical Joe or Jane pose? Classic questions that fit the essay in question are:

How do you know that?

What is your evidence?

Questions provide you TIME to think and clearer understanding of your interlocutor’s point of view. I find that people are more willing to engage when I ask questions. My challenge is to REMEMBER to avoid direct statements and use the softer approach.

Finishing up what I saw in this essay, let me share its staggering conclusion:

“The crux of the issue is not whether you would have an abortion yourself. It’s whether you would stand in the way of someone else’s decision.”

Worded like this, readers are led to a conclusion that actually deflects them away from the essential issue of the life of the unborn to the arena of personal liberty. And what about compassion, that ‘unconditional kindness’ the abortion doula says every woman who finds herself pregnant deserves? Doesn’t the baby deserve compassion? Where’s the kindness shown him or her?

Do you see the deeper moral question that has broad ramifications?

What do we do when ‘rights’ are in conflict with one another? How do we decide between competing moral values?

Our Declaration of Independence promotes the protection of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ How do we prioritize competing rights of life and liberty? What if someone’s right to life contradicts someone’s right to liberty? Who gets to decide? What considerations inform the decision process?

Life is complex. Certainly most issues are too layered to present anything coherent or rational in a tweet or even one 700-word opinion piece in the New York Times. We need MORE thinkers. And thinkers need to keep practicing their skills.

Our culture is rife with ‘rights’ talk. Just consider a few contemporary claims:

right to free health care

right to censor views one doesn’t like

right to end life whenever one wants

right to define oneself however one wants

right to approval, acceptance and approbation for one’s lifestyle choice

right to a certain income level

My husband and I were discussing the concept of rights the other night while fixing dinner. He made the interesting point:

A right granted should not burden anyone else

As we discussed this idea, I recalled a statement I heard on a call-in show about Second Language Acquisition (SLA) that

All claims must be falsifiable to be legitimate.

The classic example is the Christian claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

What would it take to disprove that, but a dead body identified as the crucified Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth!

So back to my husband’s premise that granting a right to someone should not burden someone else. He and I started to tick off rights granted to Americans by the Constitution:

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – we saw no harm or burden imposed on someone else

the Supreme Court granted women the right to choose an abortion – but even though LEGAL, it certainly harms many (the baby, the family members who wanted that baby to live, and not a few mothers themselves)

how about the right of a person who claims to be a different gender and wants to choose the bathroom most comfortable to him/her? – does that harm anyone? Yes! the biological bearers of the gender who don’t want to share a public bathroom with someone born a different gender

What about environment? Are we entitled to live in a smoke-free or perfume-free or a ‘differing viewpoint-free zone’?

If I want to smoke a cigarette, which is legal, should I be free to smoke where I want? Is that a right or a privilege? I could argue that it is included in my right to pursue happiness.

But what if you want to occupy that same spot and NOT have to smell my smoke, does that mean you can make me leave? Is someone harmed there?

This gets tricky and requires thoughtfulness. If two people are required to work or live in a spot (like prison or the military) then a compromise can be worked out to accommodate someone’s privilege of smoking with someone’s preference (or health-related necessity) to work/sleep in a smoke-free area.

What about the right to a free education? The Bill of Rights handles that and other rights not enumerated by the Constitution by leaving them to the states to handle. The wording goes like this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Can you think of a ‘right’ that might be justifiable and one that brings harm to someone? Of course we should define our term ‘harm’. I can foresee the challenge such an exercise in clarity might be. Bringing a group of people to consensus over an acceptable definition of ‘harm’ would take a while.

No small task for sure, but once we gain agreement on the meaning of our principle term, then we can turn attention, to let’s say, the 9th amendment and put those ‘granted rights’ up against the claim that granting a right should do no harm. Take a look at how the Supreme Court has used this amendment.

Another letter to the editor of our local Asheville paper. Thankfully, I never seem to run out of material to consider for a logic column!

Here’s the startling statement to consider:

“Good healthcare ought to be a right here as it is in the rest of the world.”

So where does a Logical Gal or Guy start in dissecting this conclusion?

Let’s start at the very beginning!

Logical thinking starts with an examination of terms. Remember, that HE who makes the claim MUST defend it. The burden of proof is on the claim-maker to explain his terms and his reasons for how he arrived at his assertion.

Don’t be afraid – you don’t have to know ANYTHING about the intricacies of healthcare to engage with someone like this letter writer. Asking questions will immediately shift the burden and you will not feel any pressure at all.

Here are a few to get us started:

1. What do you have in mind when you talk about ‘healthcare’ ? Does that include just emergency services like if you break a leg? Does it include preventative care like annual check-ups? How many tests should be provided? Are medications part of healthcare? What limits, if any, do you envision?

2. And who gets to decide what is ‘good’? How do you define ‘good’ ? Are there different tiers of quality or the quantity of services provided?

3. What do you mean by ‘right’ ? Like civil rights? Would this be a federal right that would need to begin as a constitutional amendment? Or are you talking about a state’s right? Would citizens get to define the right? vote for the right?

4. Where is ‘healthcare’ a right in other parts of the world? What kind is provided? How is it paid for? What is the tax situation like in those countries? Are their citizens ‘content’ with the quality, delivery and cost of healthcare?

5. How did you arrive at your conclusion that ‘good healthcare ought to be a right in the US’? What are your reasons? what research did you conduct?

Do you see how easy it would be to conduct a GENTLE (not a pounding/hounding/beat you into the ground) conversation?

Anyone can write a letter or make a claim. Opinions are a dime a dozen:

That works out to .83 cents per opinion…

But reasoned, thoughtful discourse is invaluable (and rare).

PS: Greg Koukl in his book Tactics Book Link walks his readers through more questioning practice. It’s worth studying and internalizing.